You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
ArgoCD object doesn't use argocd-server-tls secret in openshift-gitops namespace for the openshift-gitops-server route.
Currently the TLS certificate has to be embedded inside the ArgoCD CR to make it deploy a TLS cert for the openshift-gitops-server route. This is counterproductive. Openshift-gitops operator should always use secrets instead of embedded certificates.
Describe the solution you'd like
The current setup according to the openshift-gitops documentation is:
OCP 4.16 is supposed to have a new field added to Route API "externalCertificate". I don't know the exact design details, but I assume the intention is to allow referencing a secret natively. Again assuming this is implemented, ArgoCD should be able to easily expose the field in the spec.server.route.tls.externalCertificate,
The other option, and probably more stable would be simply using the ingress in ArgoCD CR as a means for configuring the route which does let you specify the TLS secret and OCP will generate the route + embed the certificate automatically.
ArgoCD operator should work with older versions of OCP as well. So it may not be a good idea to depend on the latest OCP 4.16 feature for the implementation.
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
ArgoCD object doesn't use argocd-server-tls secret in openshift-gitops namespace for the openshift-gitops-server route.
Currently the TLS certificate has to be embedded inside the ArgoCD CR to make it deploy a TLS cert for the openshift-gitops-server route. This is counterproductive. Openshift-gitops operator should always use secrets instead of embedded certificates.
Describe the solution you'd like
The current setup according to the openshift-gitops documentation is:
Instead, it should be:
Describe alternatives you've considered
N/A
Additional context
N/A
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: